The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Delhi government to withdraw its appeal against a Delhi high court order that had mandated the implementation of the Pradhan Mantri-Ayushman Bharat Health Infrastructure Mission (PM-ABHIM) in the national capital, after the newly elected Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government informed the court that the scheme is now being implemented.
This marks the first instance of the BJP-led Delhi government reversing a legal challenge initiated by the previous Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) administration. The decision, coming days after the BJP’s decisive electoral victory in Delhi, signals a shift in the city’s health care policy, aligning it with the Centre’s initiative.
A bench of justices Bhushan R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, taking note of the changed political landscape, quipped: “Now you won’t be interested to continue with this case.” The court had earlier, on January 17, stayed the high court’s December 24, 2024, order, which had directed the Delhi government to sign a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare by January 5.
During Friday’s proceedings, advocate Jyoti Mendiratta, representing the Delhi government, informed the bench: “We are now going ahead with the implementation of the PM-ABHIM scheme.” Taking note of this, the court allowed the government to withdraw its appeal.
The withdrawal application stated: “The order dated December 24, 2024, was challenged on the ground that the formulation and implementation of policy decisions fall exclusively within the domain of a duly elected executive government. The present government is now implementing said policy as directed by the high court and is taking necessary steps to ensure compliance with the objectives of PM-ABHIM. In view of the above developments, the present petition has become infructuous, and there remains no cause for adjudication before this court.”
The case had reached the apex court in January when it issued a stay on the high court’s December 24 directive, which mandated the Delhi government to sign the MoU by January 5. The high court had taken a strong stance on Delhi’s non-implementation of the scheme, arguing that when 33 other states and Union territories had adopted it, there was no justification for Delhi’s reluctance. The AAP government, at the time, had opposed the order, maintaining that health care policy decisions fell within its jurisdiction and that its existing schemes provided broader coverage than PM-ABHIM.
The dispute over PM-ABHIM originated from a suo motu public interest litigation (PIL) initiated by the high court in 2017, addressing the acute shortage of ICU beds and ventilators in Delhi’s government hospitals. The high court ruled that the MoU should be signed to ensure Delhi residents received central funding for health infrastructure, even during the Model Code of Conduct in force amid elections.
In January, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the AAP government, had argued that the high court overstepped its jurisdiction by compelling the Delhi government to sign an MoU, a policy decision beyond judicial interference. He pointed out that while the Centre would bear 60% of capital expenditure under PM-ABHIM, Delhi would have to cover 40%, with no central support for running costs. The AAP administration insisted its health schemes provided better coverage than the central scheme.
The case became a political flashpoint, with the BJP accusing the AAP of depriving Delhi residents of quality health care and the AAP defending its independent health initiatives while questioning the Centre’s financial commitments. The dispute became a key issue in the assembly elections, with both parties using it to shape their electoral narratives.
Separately, the Supreme Court this week linked Delhi’s political shift to governance issues, particularly efforts to clean the Yamuna. With the BJP now in power in both Delhi and Haryana, the court suggested that inter-state disputes over water quality and pollution could see resolution. On February 25, justice Gavai noted that the “change of circumstance” in Delhi should lead to better implementation of river cleanup plans. The observation came during the hearing of a suo motu petition on polluted rivers, particularly the Yamuna.
“With the change of circumstance, disputes between the Haryana and Delhi governments may not arise,” remarked justice Gavai, referring to BJP-led administrations in both states. The court had taken suo motu cognisance of the issue in 2021 after repeated Delhi government complaints about high ammonia levels in the Yamuna disrupting water treatment and supply.